Social Question

How can voter ID laws be seen as anything but an attempt to deprive people of their right to vote?

In order to justify a law, it must be shown that it does more good than harm. Let’s investigate voter ID laws from this perspective.

The justification given is that it is supposed to prevent voter fraud. How big of a problem is this? Firstly, are we able to detect it? Absolutely, we can. While you can rob a house anonymously, you can’t vote anonymously. You have to first register and have your name checked by poll workers. If two people try to vote using the same name, there is clearly an irregularity. If you vote using the name of someone deceased, there are regular checks performed to check for this.

Secondly, how much of an incentive is there to commit voter fraud? In exchange for one vote a person faces fines, imprisonment and, where it applies, deportation. Is it really worth it?

Finally, what do the records indicate about the incidence of voter fraud? All records indicate that, as common sense would dictate, it is extremely rare, a fraction of a percent.

Now, let’s investigate the consequences of voter ID laws. Studies indicate that a significant number of eligible lower income voters would be kept from voting, far higher than the number of voters engaged in fraud.

The conclusion is that voter ID laws cause more harm than good and should therefore not be implemented. What makes it worse is that the sponsors of these laws do so knowing full well what the consequences are, and are in fact motivated to keep poor people from voting so as to take votes away from the Democrats.

129 Answers

The myth is that there is a lot of voter fraud. The prevalence of mob movies may add some legitimacy to this myth, and people who like conspiracy theories believe there criminals out there trying to throw the elections to the Democrats.

Of course, that makes no sense, either. Criminals want Republicans to win because Republicans are weak on economic crime, and mob crime is all about making money.

The only possible reason for voter ID laws is to suppress voters who are likely to vote for Democrats. Look around. Have any Democratic governors or legislatures proposed this legislation? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I’d be very surprised. That right there should tell you this is partisan bullshit; with an agenda other than the stated agenda.

I just had an argument over facebook with my very conservative cousin and a buddy of his. They were convinced voter fraud was not only wide-spread, but numbering in the millions nationwide every election. I was simply stunned. They sent me this link they claimed was full of stories of dead people turning out to vote, and districts with over 100% turnout… and when I read it it was just people registered to vote, from counties that hadn’t cleared the dead off their rolls…. and only one case of a guy trying to vote for two dead people.

The conservatives are really brainwashed on this one. I’m not against photo-ID laws… but most of these states don’t even offer a free photo ID. And it’s more than a little concerning that states that have had majority Republican control for 2 years now decided to implement these new measures a few months before the presidential election, when there’s no possible way the groups tasked with printing these ID’s for people could possibly supply them to even half of those without them.

There is no mystery here. The Republicans have admitted what they are doing has nothing to do with voter fraud but is to suppress Democratic voters.

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai: “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Wisconsin State Senator Glenn Grothman:
Question: If it were upheld and in place in time for the November election, do you think — polls have shown a pretty razor-thin margin — do you think it might ultimately help Romney’s campaign here in the state?
GROTHMAN: Yes. Right. I think we believe that insofar as there are inappropriate things, people who vote inappropriately are more likely to vote Democrat.

There was more voter fraud on the Supreme Court in 2000 than there has been in actual elections.

Many (if not most) of the voter ID laws passed by the various states were suggested or written by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) One of the original members of ALEC, Paul Weyrich has been quoted as saying: “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

This is a problem because it’s convenient for it to be one. There is nothing except political motive that keeps an inclusive, secure, national voter ID system from being implemented. There is going to be fraud and the opportunity for abuse in any system. But instead of acknowledging it and working together to minimize it while improving the access of eligible voters, both parties continue to seek to politicize and “solve” the problem to their advantage. Until such tit-for-tatting and fearmongering ends it’s an issue that continue to appear partisan.

Voter ID Laws are a blatant attempt to disenfranchise Democrat voters. Several Republicans have tried to manipulate the very few incidences of actual voter fraud in order to get these laws passed. The Republicans have even admitted (candidly) that it was to keep ‘minority’ voters from being able to vote. The only verifiable incidences of fraudulent voting have all been by Republican voters. Trying to keep disadvantaged Americans from voting is a strong Republican party issue.

Who in the flying fuck does not have a state ID or a Drivers License? I can’t go the doctor, pick up a prescription, drive a car, use my bank account, enroll in school, visit my sons school, sign him out early, get on an airplane, buy cigarettes, send a package via fed ex or UPS, I can’t even buy a fucking lighter without showing my ID.I’ll support your fight against requiring voters to have ID…..right after you make an issue of all the other things that require an ID, because until then, you are just another liberal nitpicking at the GOP.You can’t enter seaworld in San Diego without them scanning your fingerprint, but you want to bitch about showing ID to vote for someone who will more or less control the country for 4 years. Seriously?

@cheebdragon In Pennsylvania (admittedly the only one I have done any real research on) there are several hundred thousand people living in the urban areas who do not have state issued ID’s. Most of them are elderly, or in some way disabled. Many are simply incredibly poor. They rely on the mass transit systems or close locality of work and their home (if they have a job). The elderly are in many cases in homes and while they may have an old drivers license, it is often no longer a valid drivers license, and hence not usable to vote.

One could also take issue with the fact that you have to pay for one of these photo-id’s, and they are not offered for free in Pennsylvania. They may cost only $40 or so, but that’s still $40 in order to have the right to vote.

The estimate was that the GOP rules mandating photo ID’s in Pennsylvania could eliminate as many as 1 million peoples voting rights. Especially troubling is that the GOP has had control of the state government in Pennsylvania since 2010, but only decided to push this measure through a few months before the election (and after their own primaries)... If the law passes legal challenges, there’s no possible way that those 1 million people could get photo ids, as the agencies that make the ids lack the capability to make 1 million id’s in 2 months.

@zenvelo I should have put problem in quotes. Agreed this isn’t a real problem but it seems to have become a manufactured problem; something that seems just enough like it could be an issue that when sufficiently puffed up with hot air begins to appear as though it is and begins to take on a life of its own. A couple related articles that back up what you and others have said (1, 2) My prior point was that even using this as a platform, regardless of its reality, is inappropriate particularly as simple measures that could actually improve access and reliability overall are available. But then that would also remove the “problem” and its ability to be used as a stumping point.

@cheebdragon I would also point out that I actually agree with photo-id laws for voting, but only if they make them 1)Free, 2)Readily available to anyone, even the infirmed, and 3)They put the rules in place well enough in advance to give everyone a real chance to get said ID.

More troubling to me are other Republican attempts to curtail voting of late. Barely a year ago they were trying in several places around the country to make it a law that you had to have lived at a permanent address for a minimum of 1 year before you could vote.. even if you moved to a new residence in the same district. In essence this meant college kids who moved to a new apartment or what not with the new school year, would not be eligible to vote there. The only work around was if you claimed your parents address as your permanent address, in which case you could vote in the elections there…... I only once in 5 years of college stayed at my residence for more than 1 year, and every other year would’ve been forced to vote in elections in my home town… a place I no longer lived and had no concern with anymore, while being denied the right to vote in the place I now called home.

They also tried to make stringent rules on registering to vote in Florida (you had to fill out and return the voter registration within 48 hours or it became invalid).

Here in Ohio our Republican secretary of state was cutting early voting hours in Democratic strongholds (no weekends or nights), while at the same time extending early voting hours in Republican held rural areas.

Voter ID laws are the ones the Republicans like to point out, cuz most would agree with the principal of a photo ID (when implemented properly, which is not what the Republicans are doing)... but they’ve done a lot of shady stuff that they’d like to keep from your attention as well.

I’m with @cheebdragon on this one. I can’t buy liquor without an ID. I can’t write a check without showing my ID. I can’t pick my own kids up from school without my ID.

If you have to show your ID for little things like buying beer, writing checks, and picking up your own damn children, why in the fuck shouldn’t you have to show ID for something major like voting for who is going to be our president for the next four years?

@WillWorkForChocolate and @cheebdragon You don’t have a fundamental civil right to buy liquor or drive a car. And you can pay cash, you don’t have to write a check. There is no law requiring an ID to charge thousands of dollars.

If the states want to make sure the right person is voting, why not offer a free State approved ID at the same time that you register to vote? Charging for it would be a poll tax, so give it away for free.

@WillWorkForChocolate I don’t think most people argue against that idea. The problem is that right now you have millions of elderly and disabled people nationwide without an id, who will never be able to get one before this election… we’re ruling out their ability to vote.

Also, ID’s aren’t free in most of the country. Even if it only costs me $40 for an ID, that’s still money I have to pay to exercise my right to vote.

@zenvelo Okay, fine. Liquor, driving, and check writing aside, if I have to have some sort of valid ID to prove that I am the mother of my own children (even with them jumping up and down yelling “Mommy!”) in order to pick them up from school when they do random ID checks at the door, then I sure don’t have a problem with ID being required in order to vote for the next 4 year leader of my country, regardless of who doesn’t have one and why they don’t have one.

I’m fine with the idea of making IDs cheaper or even free in some cases, but with everything in life that requires a valid ID, I think it’s stupid to not require one for voting.

FYI: http://www.866ourvote.org/ is the website and toll-free phone number of an organization that is monitoring election laws, and assisting people in ensuring that they meet their state’s deadlines and requirements.

As @tedd says, I’m not against the idea of having to produce an ID in order to vote. However, such rules should be enacted well in advance of an election, be highly publicized, and include free ID. As is, this is nothing more than an attempt to suppress votes.

Before I go into detail about anything, I would like to point out that this is not a yes or no question. There are many ways to implement a voter ID laws, many of which are better than others. You have to take into account exactly why some laws might cause people to not be able to vote, and how that might be prevented.

To start off, I am in favor of a voter ID law, since I always like to reduce voting fraud. My goal is to create a voter ID law that does not discriminate.

Voting fraud is not very widespread. There is not much that a single person would gain (monetary or otherwise) by stealing somebody’s vote and voting twice. Also, there is not going to be a master conspiracy to rig elections. This being said, the primary consideration is avoiding the creation of a poll tax.

One of my requirements for a voter ID law would be that the IDs would be free and readily available, such as when a person registers, or maybe there could even be (probably one-time) distribution at the actual polls. There must be a substantial delay (several years) between when voter ID are started to be distributed and when they are started to be needed. The IDs need to be available whenever a person wants one. The IDs also have to have a reasonably long expiration date.

In order of decreasing preference:
Voter ID law with no poll tax
No Voter ID law
Voter ID law that is a poll tax (most current laws)

I might also add that the whole fact that a poll tax is discriminating against minorities (which they are) perhaps shows a much deeper problem in society.

All right here’s my question. They had four fucking years, FOUR, to figure this whole thing out. And they’re going to make a big issue out of it months before Presidential elections. How can this be anything but an attempt to deprive people of their right to vote?

The elderly and poor must have proper IDs to sign up for and receive their retirement, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government benefits, direct deposits, fuel assistance, enroll children in school, et al.

My state (which has actually had these voter ID laws since 2003) recently changed the rules of what happens to your drivers license when your license is suspended. Whereas before, it simply got a hole punch in it signifying that it was no longer a valid driving license, it is now taken away from you by the police officer or government official when you are first informed of being on suspension. And interestingly, the DMV has this nasty little habit of not having all of its offices talk with all of its other offices, meaning it’s actually rather easy for you to pay off a ticket at one location, and have another one not get the word and suspend your license. So, in addition to not giving out free IDs, they can also take your ID (and yes, your ability to write checks, buy liquor, etc) for a clerical error.

In the 8 years of the Bush Presidency, when you would think that the Bush Justice Department would vigorously pursue voter fraud if there was any, there were a total of 86 cases. Most of these were convicted felons voting, and State issued ID cards or licenses would not have dealt with these. But even if we include all 86 proven cases, out of 9,078,728 votes cast that amounts to a fraud rate of 0.00004%. Republicans today are liars and enemies of democracy. They are simply trying to engineer the vote, which is REAL voter fraud.

@bkcunningham Everything you listed can be done once and then doesn’t need to be touched again, or doesn’t require a photo id. There are millions of elderly, infirmed, and disabled people nationwide who do not have a valid photo-id. You can’t even use an expired license with most of these laws.

And I know my locality charges you for an ID. We got a state issued ID for the autistic boy I tutor to put in his wallet, and it definitely wasn’t free.

@bkcunningham A quick search found that in 2010 it was roughly 217 million people link .

I’m trying to find something with the exact count of voters without eligible ID, here’s what I’ve got so far:
-This one shows around 5% of Texas’ population doesn’t have one of the required photo ID’s. It also points out that ¼ of Texas’ counties lack an office that could distribute an ID, which would require those without them (usually poor, elderly, or infirmed) to travel up to 250 miles to get one. The minimum cost for valid ID’s is $22, and that’s after Texas waives several fees. link

Jon Stewart nailed it on his show. It’s fun to read all the lies the right-wingers here are spreading to try to justify what is a blatant power grab to limit democracy just enough to set up permanent one-party rule. I just wonder how wonderful things will get when the corporatist masters behind the GOP curtain have absolute and permanent government control in their hands.

Dude. It appears to be broken. You didn’t get that at the fake fluther site? Because we’ve been having problems with that. But don’t worry, you can turn in your fake false comparison detector and any other fake fluther certificates to the Orange Tree, no questions asked. I think you can get a certificate for a virtual lunch out of it, too.

I guess republicans have been plotting against Obama for years then….?

”“2003: New voter ID laws were passed in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota
2005: New voter ID laws were passed in Indiana, New Mexico and Washington; Georgia tightened an existing voter ID law to require photo ID
2006: New voter ID law passed in Ohio; Georgia passed a law providing for the issuance of voter ID cards at no cost to registered voters who do not have a driver’s license or state-issued ID card; Missouri tightened an existing voter ID law to require photo ID
2008: New Mexico relaxed an existing voter ID law, and now allows a voter to satisfy the ID requirement by stating his/her name, address as registered, and year of birth
2009: New voter ID law passed in Utah
2010: New voter ID law passed in Idaho; Oklahoma voters approved a voter ID proposal placed on the ballot by the Legislature
2011: New voter ID laws passed in Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas tightened existing voter ID laws to require photo ID (new laws in Texas and South Carolina are on hold pending USDOJ preclearance). Governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed strict new photo ID laws in 2011.
2012: Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed new voter ID laws.”

Those who have trouble with ID are elderly and poor, without access to birth certificates for any number of reasons. Oddly, many of these people are not white. So the impact of the law is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional, even if the law had no intent to be discriminatory.

But of course the people who pushed the law knew that it would hurt only Democrats, even though all the people it hurt were legal voters.

There’s no need for these laws. It is just a tactic in the overall battle between conservatives and the rest of us.

@Crashsequence2012 If you can’t dispute a man’s facts, you can always go for the ever popular ad hominem. That will always do to discredit truth, in the mind of those who despise truth.

If degrees from prestigious universities made facts, the Earth would still be flat, and the Sun would be revolving dutifully around it. Certainly you are bright enough to know better than that when you take your partisan blinders off. Truth is true whether spoken by geniuses or idiots.

Not that it has squat to do with the facts he presents in the video clips, but Jon Stewart has a degree in psychology from The College of William & Mary. If you truly think that a degree in both journalism and political science from a prestigious university are required before one can offer valid political cometary, where did you get your degrees in those majors?

Finally, “Let’s be honest.” is right-wing newspeak for “Believe this lie.”. You want to disenfranchise as many as 5 million legally registered voters because there is a demonstrated voter fraud level of 0.00004% in the past decade. Oh, and it’s just a coincidence that the vast majority of voters you want to prevent from voting by these new GOP obstructions happen to belong to groups who traditionally vote Democratic.

We (well, most of us) pay taxes in the form of Federal, state, property, and sales, all of which are supposed to fund government functions.
Why can’t we end all of this BS and provide IDs “free of charge” funded by our TAXES?
I no longer understand the function of taxes when you still have to pay for everything the government does.
Wanna go to a state park? Gotta pay to get in.
Wanna get a business license? Gotta pay for it.
Wanna get a mandatory ID?
Gotta pay for it.
Need a construction permit?
Gotta pay.

What do our taxes do anymore besides subsidize everything, making most of us pay twice for things?

@cheebdragon Your list is kind of a waste cuz it just shows when states passed an ID law, not what was in the law. And where did the list come from too? I live in Ohio and I remember no such voter ID law being passed down in 2006.

Most of us aren’t against fair voter id laws. But those proposed over the last few months in Pennsylvania and other places across the country are not fair. In Pennsylvania, a battle ground state supposedly, they waited until 3–4 months before the election to put this law in place… knowing full well that if it stands there’s no way all those without proper ID could get the ID before the election because the agencies that supply those ID’s simply don’t have the capacity. Not to mention most/many states don’t offer free state-issued ID’s…. even if it’s just $20—$40 for an ID, it’s still me having to pay for my right to vote. And what about the elderly who are infirmed in homes and can’t get to the places where these ID’s are? They set up polling locations in those homes for them, but they don’t have mobile ID squads or anything. Or what about in Texas where many counties don’t even have BMVs and people have to drive up to 250 miles to get an ID? How are the poor people in those districts, who don’t have a car or are in some other way disabled or infirmed, supposed to go get an ID that they haven’t needed for years?

If the Republicans had done this on the up and up, we wouldn’t be upset about it. But this, paired with them just being all around shady (like the secretary here in Ohio extending voting hours in Republican districts while cutting entire early voting days in Democratic districts).... it just wreaks of them trying to commit some fraud of their own.

@Crashsequence2012 Compared to the likes of Fox news, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are a beacon of truth and honesty. He may be a liberal spin on it, but at least he’s honest about it and still gives you the facts at face value. Not to mention he isn’t one to shy away from ridiculing Democrats.

@Crashsequence2012 My point stands, facts are not facts because of who says them. They are facts because they are the truth. Tell me what Jon Stewart got wrong in his monologue, or accept the “fact” I will discount your criticism of him as nothing more than a partisan ad hominem.

@cheebdragon “I guess republicans have been plotting against Obama for years then….?”

They have been plotting for a long time, not only against Obama, but against full voter turnout in general. Paul Weyrich’, in a speech in 1980, said: “I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

@Yetanotheruser….......Fuck providing any factual evidence, no, it was a quote said 32 years ago, from just one single little republican (who died in 2008), and a link to Wikipedia, that has convinced me! Good job liberal! Your intelligence knows no bounds.~

Well, @cheebdragon ”…it was a quote said 32 years ago, from just one single little republican…”
I have no argument with you there, but that “one little republican” was instrumental or influential in the formation of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council, and these organizations have been very influential in the politics of the “New Right”. If you do the research you will see that many (if not most) of the voter ID laws in the various states were either written by or modeled on proposals by ALEC.

It seems to me that the regressive conservative movement is trying to move us to backwards, Repeal Roe v Wade that will take us back to the 1960’s. Or farther back…repeal all New Deal programs. That will take us back to the 1920’s. Repeal all labor fairness laws. That will take us back 100 years. What about child labor laws? Hell, let’s repeal the Emancipation Proclamation.

@cheebdragon GOP talking point 101. When it comes to race relations, go back 149 years, and act like that’s today. Flunk.

When the GOP Southern Strategy devoured the Dixiecrats in the 1960s, the Republican party became Dog Whistle racism central and they are more so than ever today, what with the insanity of the birther movement, which your Presidential Candidate has shamelessly signed on to.

I’m not a mod, but get back on track guys. Enough already. Make your point without being childish and calling names. Please. You’ve all had your turns arguing with @cheebdragon. Now stop. It is ridiculous.

You were very clearly calling @yetanotheruser a liberal in a derogatory manner. You are not fooling anyone by trying to after the fact claim that you were just saying it because he is a liberal, and you’re frankly just losing credibility points when you attempt to do so. And I am damned proud that I’m a liberal, especially in the face of such incredibly foul conservatives.

A note on history for you too. When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, the Republican party was the liberal party in American politics, whilst the Democrats were the conservatives. They began to swap places in the late 1800’s and had swapped entirely by the 1920’s.

Finally, your preference for using tiny, italics font is not endearing. It is annoying, and it makes reading your already shaky posts difficult, akin to someone who types a post in all caps. I would suggest saving the special font for highlighting specific parts of your arguments, its much more effective and far less annoying to everyone else.

If you are so damned proud, then why in the fuck would it bother you that I called someone a liberal? It wasn’t meant as an insult in all honesty, but now I find it fucking hilarious that you would be insulted by it. I don’t really care if you find me “endearing”(really? Endearing? Christ, are you my grandma?), if anything it actually makes my day a little better just knowing that you don’t like me. I don’t use whisper for my answers because im trying to be cute, I use it because usually my answers are slightly off topic, read the fluther guidelines, if you have a problem with it then take it up with them, since it apparently has not occurred to you that you don’t have to read anything i say. wow, and you think I’m ignorant? lol im really relieved that you think so, because it’s way higher than my opinion of you : )

@Crashsequence2012 I’m a liberal, like the Founding Fathers were. I don’t care how much your crew of Con Men demonize that good word, I have no fear in proclaiming it. I’m also a true conservative, unlike the liars throwing that term around in direct defiance of its dictionary definition today.

@cheebdragon Oh don’t worry, my life is going on pretty well. As for the second part of your statement…

In Pennsylvania as many as 1 million people (a minimum of 500,000 or so) are without proper photo-id. Despite having the state government under their full control for the last 2 years, Pennsylvania Republicans didn’t push through the legislation mandating up-to-date photo-ids until this last summer, giving all voters without said ID a maximum of 5 months to get one. The agencies and establishments that give out these ID’s can at a maximum give out 60,000 or so id’s in a single month (and that would be hours of waiting from opening to close every day). Meaning at a minimum, assuming the maximum amount of people waited in long lines to get ID’s that they can hopefully afford… 200,000 people would be unable to get their ID’s because the state simply couldn’t make them fast enough. If the number of none-id’d voters is closer to 1 million as some suggest, you could be looking at over 700,000 who can’t get an ID in time.

So the better question would be “How much time did the Republican state government need to implement this legislation?” Awfully convenient of them to remember to put it through this close to the election when it disenfranchises a few hundred thousand people who will vote for the other guy…

@tedd you mean 6 months, that law is 6 months old now and by the time of election day, it will be 8 months. 8 months to get a free ID and it appears that the state is even offering free transportation services to do so. Voter ID laws have been headed this way for about a decade now, hardly seems sudden. Most people can’t get through a week or 2 without having to show ID for one reason or another, how can anyone possibly be surprised by showing ID to vote? Can you give a source? Because it seems like you are pulling numbers out of your ass. (maybe while trying to dislodge that huge stick, eh?)

Some excerpts:
-Gersch noted that the election is only fifty-four days away and yet the state remains unprepared to implement the law and doesn’t seem committed to ensuring that every registered Pennsylvania voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot.

-A Department of Transportation study found that 758,000 registered voters did not have a PennDOT ID—a number the state disputes.

-University of Washington political scientist Matt Baretto, a witness for the ACLU, found that more than 1 million registered voters didn’t have valid voter ID. Judge Simpson said that the number “is somewhat more than 1 percent and significantly less than 9 percent,” which still leaves 100,000 to 500,000 registered voters without ID, Gersch noted.

-And Pennsylvania has made scant preparation to make sure every registered voter gets the required ID. “If the Commonwealth had a process to get everyone ID, this case wouldn’t be necessary,” Gersch said. Nine counties in Pennsylvania have no PennDOT office. In thirteen counties, the office is only open one day a week—which gives voters roughly seven opportunities between now and Election Day to obtain the right ID.

-Half of PennDOT offices don’t provide a voter ID or are open only one or two days a week. “It sounds a little bit like a nightmare,” said Judge Debra Todd

-Gersch recommended steps to make it easier for people to vote based on reforms undertaken in other states: mail a voter ID to every voter (like in Virginia), allow everyone to vote via absentee ballot (like in Georgia), provide mobile DMVs (also in Georgia), allow voters to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity if they don’t have photo ID (like in Michigan). “Pennsylvania is a case study in how not to do this,” Gersch said.

-Several justices noted that the Pennsylvania Bar Association recommended that the voter ID law be implemented over the course of two federal election cycles. “What’s the rush?” Judge Todd asked John Knorr, another lawyer for the state. “Would it be better if we had two years and not fifty-five days?”

Also this article… http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws If you read it it points out that while the first voter ID law was passed in 2003, there was a “flood” of new laws implemented after 2010 when the Republicans took control of many state houses nationwide (34 states in 2011 alone)... So I’d hardly say that the momentum has been there this whole time, and would much rather say this insanity has really been going on for a year or two.

And I’m glad we’re in agreement, Romney won’t win :). Then you conservatives can go back to sulking in private and crying like losers usually do that it was rigged.

@tedd I asked for the source of information behind your claim that “The agencies and establishments that give out these ID’s can at a maximum give out 60,000 or so id’s in a single month (and that would be hours of waiting from opening to close every day). Meaning at a minimum, assuming the maximum amount of people waited in long lines to get ID’s that they can hopefully afford… 200,000 people would be unable to get their ID’s because the state simply couldn’t make them fast enough.” The sources you provided do not cite that information. Try again. I have a hard time believing you graduated with honors, or even at all, but sure, if you say so.

What is your obsession with my hair color? Sorry to disappoint you, but my hair is red, even in that photo my hair was red, it’s just a contrast effect.

And Pennsylvania has made scant preparation to make sure every registered voter gets the required ID. “If the Commonwealth had a process to get everyone ID, this case wouldn’t be necessary,” Gersch said. Nine counties in Pennsylvania have no PennDOT office. In thirteen counties, the office is only open one day a week—which gives voters roughly seven opportunities between now and Election Day to obtain the right ID.

Is my information seriously so hard to grasp? You’re fighting for a point that’s been proven wrong. I can’t find the source for exactly 60,000 id’s/month (I most likely heard it on the radio while listening to coverage of this topic). But how can you read the above quote from the article, and think for a second that nearly a million people would have had time to get their ID’s if a Republican judge hadn’t put a hold on this stupid law?

I checked all of the sources you provided Tedd, and none of them said they could only produce a certain amount of ID’s. Maybe you heard it on the radio, maybe you just made it up, but if you can’t prove that it’s true then shut the fuck up instead of spreading false information. There is enough hate towards republicans for things that are true, no need to add your bullshit.

@cheebdragon Do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that a DMV-like government office can’t product 1 million ID’s in even 6 months when the office isn’t in many counties, and in many others is open only one day a week?

I’ve noticed the more wrong you are the more you swear btw.

And the reason there is hate towards Republicans is that when they’re faced with clear facts that show something they are backing is stupid.. rather than admit they were wrong they double down and start whining that the facts must have been altered, or the sources must be flawed, and blah blah… IE exactly what you’re doing here.

@Crashsequence2012 You’re talking an entirely different agency, with an entirely different task, that wouldn’t require people to show up there in person, and has four years from the signing of the Obamacare law to set up shop.

And besides, you’re clearly pointing out “inefficiency” in the government. But did it occur to you that the Republicans in control of those offices (aka the Secretary of State and his administration) purposely set it up so most people couldn’t get those ID’s? What possible logic is there behind only being open one day a week? If these ID’s are mandatory to vote, shouldn’t it be mandatory that every county have an office that can make them????

Reminds me of what they did to the post office. They mandated that it pay it’s retirement plans 75 years in advance, to the tune of 5.5 billion dollars a year, and then screamed inefficiencies and waste when the USPS came up 5 billion dollars short at the end of the year!

Typical Republicans. Set up an agency to fail, and then blame it for failing.

@Crashsequence2012 Am I correct in supposing that you think just because there are examples of poorly administered government programs (“There’s examples of government employed doctor hacks in every prison.”) it stands to reason (in your opinion)that the government can not do anything well?

@tedd There are only 5 locations open 1 day a week and that is mostly because the population in those areas isn’t very high, for example, Monroeton had a population of 556 in 2011. The state of California has a population of over 37 million and according to the DMV they serve 32 million customers annually. Obviously CA has a higher population than PA (about 20 million more people actually, since PA has a population just over 12 million). For arguments sake lets say that only 1 million of those 12, visit the DMV this year, that’s still about 500,000 in 6 months and roughly 83,000 customers being seen each month.
My point here tedd is that you are full of shit and apparently so stuck in your little sheeple mentality that it never occurred to you to Research anything on your own, because if Huffington Post says its true, then by golly it must be true! If you ever decide you want to think for yourself I recommend that you checkout who sits on the program advisory board for the Brennan center. I also recommend this lovely little report Voter IDs Are Not the Problem: A Survey of Three States

@cheebdragon lol…. that’s why everyone in here, and the court system in Pennsylvania (which is full of Republicans btw) roundly agree with me?

I was informed about it by the likes of the Huffington Post. I believe it because upon investigating it I found it to be true. And I believe I am right because the judges in Pennsylvania, and the majority of voters, believe the same as I do.

I recommend you stop buying immediately into conservative mantra, without fact checking it. It’s incredibly ironic of you to say I’m just buying into the Huffington post because they say it’s true (which btw I don’t read HP), when that’s exactly what you’re doing. Conservative sources have told you that everyone would be able to get their ID’s, and you accept it without even doing the basic thinking to realize there may be a few problems if ½ a million to a million voters all try to get a specific ID from specialized government offices that have limited hours in a just a few short months.

(Excerpts)
-In the Pennsylvania case, Simpson, who heard frustrated voters testify about the slow, mistake-prone process of obtaining the cards, said he had expected a greater number of identification cards to have been issued by now.

-“For this reason, I accept (the) argument that in the remaining five weeks before the general election, the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed,” the judge said in an 18-page ruling.

-The state of Pennsylvania has acknowledged it has never seen a case of in-person voter fraud, according to court testimony.

-On Tuesday, a three-hour wait at a voter ID issuing center in Philadelphia was endured by a crowd of 200 people, mostly African-American.

@Crashsequence2012 Except the undocumented aren’t voting. The state of Pennsylvania itself (who was the one defending the law) admitted they had zero cases of attempted in person voter fraud to report. This was the right trying to dick people, who were overwhelmingly democratic, out of their votes.

That the reason people are against proper proof of ID to vote is a financial one just doesn’t add up,

So there MUST be another reason.

That said. Though I agree with the right to vote for all (noting established exceptions) I have to say it makes me wonder what could the political convictions be of an individual “too poor to afford identification.”

My gut says it probably isn’t one that’s good for the nation as a whole.

In other words, if your situation is SO bad that you cannot afford ID you need to change something closer to home than that which would be altered by a vote.

@Crashsequence2012 I am adamantly and vehemently against these new voter ID laws…. But only because they were rushed through and didn’t allow enough time for everyone to learn they needed ID’s and get them. Republicans didn’t push through these new laws until this last summer, in some cases (such as Pennsylvania) despite the fact they had total control of the state government for 2 or more years. And many states made no efforts to accommodate the infirmed or elderly who can’t make it to these locations to get a new valid ID.

I have no qualms with photo ID laws for voting. But do it right and set it up plenty ahead of time, and give everyone a chance to get an ID. The way Republicans have gone about this has been shady as heck, and very plainly pointed to inhibit people who tend to vote democratic. Here in Ohio our Secretary of State (a Republican) tried to extend early voting hours in rural conservative leaning areas, and cut voting hours in more urban Democratic leaning districts. Just shady crap.

@Crashsequence2012 Obamacare was introduced in the early months of summer, and didn’t get signed into law until what, the following March? It languished in committee’s and was debated about at great length. Not to mention the plan that was signed into law had been brought up several times before, and the majority of it had been written up and seen by at least the senators since the mid 90’s when the Republicans proposed it. Most importantly, Obamacare’s actual implementation was to take place over 4 years, and the bulk of it doesn’t come into effect until 2014.

These voter ID laws were signed into law in some cases as late as July before an election taking place the following November 6. These laws, which would definitely take time to implement, to ensure everyone gets ID’s and knows they need them now… were set to be implemented immediately, before a massive presidential election. Unlike Obamacare which was given 4 years to take effect because everyone know it would be chaos if it just suddenly was law.

I would also submit to you that it takes some 550 or so congressmen and senators a lot less time to read through that bill and debate it, then it does the 1 million or more voters in Pennsylvania without ID’s to go get ID’s from a purposely underfunded and under-houred government office.

Interesting note about Obamacare. They implemented it over a long period of time in order to give states a chance to get ready. Ironically, most states aren’t using that time. They are waiting for the election to see if it will be overturned. If it is not overturned, then they will only have a very short period of time to get ready, or let the feds do all the work.

In hindsight, I’d say the provisions of Obamacare should have been implemented quickly, no matter what. Then the Republicans, if they win, would be in the position of having to explain why they are taking away people’s benefits.

“Of the 1,600 registered illegals in Miami-Dade County thus far identified, around two-thirds have actually cast ballots. This is troubling for an extra reason: Illegal-voter participation is much higher than the general public’s.”

“Illegal or erroneous voter registration is a national problem. A study by the Pew Center on the States, released in February, found 24 million flawed voter registrations nationwide, or one in eight registrations. These include inaccurate or duplicate records, people registered in two or more states and almost 2 million voters who are on the books even though they are deceased. The number of bad registrations is daunting; 24 million is larger than the winning margins of the last five presidential races combined. If the 2012 race is close, the potential impact of fraudulent votes is magnified. The Florida case is especially illustrative. In the contested 2000 vote count, George W. Bush won the state and thus the presidency by just 537 votes. Two weeks ago, Florida found and removed 53,000 dead people from its voter lists.” – Source

@Crashsequence2012 Yes, I know why they did it. I think that in hindsight, it was a mistake. They should have moved faster, and dealt with the outrage sooner, but also had a chance to show the program’s benefits sooner. If your guy wins, @Crashsequence2012, the program will never get a chance to show what it can do. You will say that it is a bad program and needs to be stopped before it does any more harm, but 90% of it has yet to be implemented, and it could be like Massachusetts, where it actually does reduce the uninsured and it brings down health care costs.

Obviously, I’m a lukewarm proponent, since I prefer single payer. But singler payer is even harder to get. You guys may see red at Obamacare, but you act like single payer is a communist revolution. You gotta admit—you’re kinda rabid that way.

@Crashsequence2012 lol… yes it was purely to lessen the outrage. It had nothing to do with the fact that they had to set up new agencies on the state level, the states had to decide if they wanted to implement them, the insurance agencies had to figure out the new details of their plans and prepare for an influx of 40 million new customers, etc, etc, etc.

100% to “lessen the outrage.”

Or no wait, wouldn’t it make more sense to do the whole thing at once, and then let the peoples outrage lessen over time, rather than drag it out over 4 years and let it continue the entire time?